That’s a very cynical view. Their country is their master, if they got invaded, like Ukraine do, then them fighting for their master(or country, if you will) is fighting for freedom.
I mean, there are soldiers fighting for their countries’ safety today! They’re just not the ones thousands of kilometres away from home (they might be piloting drones on the other side of the world, I guess, lol), of course.
There has never been a time where soldiers were fighting for freedom. They fight for their master.
That’s a very cynical view. Their country is their master, if they got invaded, like Ukraine do, then them fighting for their master(or country, if you will) is fighting for freedom.
Fighting foreign enemies at home doesn’t automatically make it a “fight for freedom”. Case in point: Taliban vs USA
Uhh no shit, nuance is important.
You don’t think the Taliban were fighting for their freedom?
What were they fighting for then?
Fighting for power first and foremost, but I guess you could go and say it was for the “freedom to rule”
I mean, there are soldiers fighting for their countries’ safety today! They’re just not the ones thousands of kilometres away from home (they might be piloting drones on the other side of the world, I guess, lol), of course.
What do you consider a soldier to be? Because I have a feeling you are using a very narrow definition that excludes some of the examples I would make.
Maybe not in our lifetime, but you’re really going to say ww2 wasn’t to stop evil? What about the civil war?
It wasn’t, thinking so is a very absurd reduction of many different interests at play over 3 fronts (Africa, Europe, Asia)
Which one? Afghan, Lybian, Syrian, Iraqi, Rwandan, Spanish?
This guy is defending nazis and slavery
Interesting…